Stokes v. Boyce

Lauren Stokes is a former administrative employee of the University of Mississippi’s Development Office. On her own time and private social media account, Stokes reposted content critical of conservative activist Charlie Kirk in the wake of his tragic assassination. When Stokes received a flood of angry messages and threats from strangers on the Internet in response to her post, her boss was initially supportive. But when Stokes showed up to work the next morning, the university immediately placed her on administrative leave and fired her hours later.

Stokes’s post was speech on a contentious political issue—the bedrock of the First Amendment. But she was punished because of how other people reacted to it. The Supreme Court has long made clear, however, that “[s]peech cannot be … punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob.” If people can’t handle Stokes’s constitutionally protected expression without resorting to online threats and harassment, the problem isn’t Stokes.

The trial court improperly dismissed Stokes’ lawsuit against her former employer, claiming that her speech caused “disruption” at the university. FIRE has filed an amicus brief urging the Fifth Circuit to reverse. The brief argues that the trial court created an unconstitutional “heckler’s veto” by characterizing external, online backlash to Stokes’s post as internal workplace “disruption.” Public universities in particular have a duty to foster an environment of open intellectual discourse, which is undermined by firing employees for their political speech. Simply put, the First Amendment does not allow the government to fire its employees just because they disagree with the views of the loudest online audience.